A comparative study of the models of disability under treaties of international human rights and international humanitarian law.

The paper shall is using the models of disability as lenses of developing a comparative design of exploring and examining the implications and impacts of the differences in legal approaches to issues of disability in treaties of international human rights and those of international humanitarian law. The paper exhibits an innovative approach of using the theory of disability studies by correlating it in the context of treaties of public international law. That theory has been rarely constructed in the context of understanding the legal history of the sources used by public international law. The theory applied relates to models of disability such as; the Individual model, (ii) Medical model (iii) Charity/Tragedy model, Institutional /Rehabilitation/Consumer model, Social/ Social model /Social right based model. In that regard the paper is designed to demonstrate that a significant number of charted treaties mechanisms on human rights have shown a tendency of shifting towards to the social right based model of disability ever since the coming into force of the Convention on rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD). However the Geneva Convention (I-IV) and the Additional Protocols have hardly responded issues of disability in the same manner. The treaties of the latter are still perceiving disability through lenses of a medical model. They also associate disability to sickness, wounding and medicalisation, with less emphasis or clarity on aspects of inclusion in aspects applying the equal of fundamental guarantees or special considerations to the protection to objects useful for the continued or aftermath integration of civilians with disabilities. The paper uses the differences in the models to deconstruct a presumption that multilateral treaties for international human rights and international human rights are complementing each other during armed conflicts